Tuesday, July 13, 2004

In case you had any doubts 2.......

My previous post (In case you had any doubts...) about the LDS Church position on gay marriage generated some comments ("Wow! Two Comments! And not from my worthless brother either!") and instead of responding to them in the comments, I decided to devote another post to the responses. Many people have said that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Since we are throwing the words “civil rights” around, let’s look at what exactly this means. From dictionary.com, civil rights is

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

Civil rights belong to us because of our citizenship in the United States and include freedom from discrimination. From www.hyperdictionary.com, freedom of discrimination is:

freedom from discrimination on the basis of race or sex or nationality or religion or age; guaranteed by US Federal laws

Race, sex, religion or age. No where in that definition are the words “sexual orientation” found. To believe that gay marriage is a civil rights issue is not supported by the facts. No where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is the “right to marry” found. If, as was suggested, marriage is a “basic right”, why has the United States on more than one occasion passed laws which were later upheld by the Supreme Court regulating the practice of marriage. As any member of the LDS Church knows (especially those from Utah), the US government after the Civil War, passed many laws outlawing the practice of polygamy. At that time, the only people practicing polygamy were the members of the LDS Church and these laws essentially told them that freedom of religion existed for others, but not for them. The LDS Church fought the laws in the courts, but when the Supreme Court finally upheld the laws, the church was forced to stop the practice. There are still polygamists in Utah and if we are going to argue that gays have a “basic right” to marry who they want, what about polygamists who desire to be married to more than one person? Does the “basic right” of marriage also apply to polygamist marriage? How can it be argued that gays have a “basic right” to marry who they choose and polygamists do not? What about men (and women) who desire to marry a minor? Should minimum age laws for marriage be scrapped because of someone’s “basic right” to marry who they choose? Now that we are heading down the proverbial “slippery slope”, why limit it to just humans? I’m sure that there are persons out there who want to be able to marry the object of their love, even if it happens to be an animal. Should we also allow them their “basic right” to marry who they love? It is easy to see that gay marriage advocates are confusing their “wants” (marriage) with “needs” (civil rights).

Is the “basic right” of marriage, which is not in the Constitution more important than my Constitutionally-protected right of religion. Will the Great State of Utah, where the majority of the population has deep religious convictions against gay marriage, be forced to accept gay marriages performed in other states? People who dismiss these concerns as over-reacting are the same people who dismiss people with strong religious convictions as being “out-of-touch”. As I said before, the civil war was fought over slavery and states rights. Will the next be over gay marriage?


At 4:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two men, two women, doesn't matter, right?

About about three men? Three women? Two men and a woman? Your cat? Two women, a cat, and three men?

No? Why not?

I love my cat and three women and a man and they all love me. Why can't we all get married? Why it is limited to just two people? Or why just people?

Who are you to deny my civil right to marry as many things and people I want? I love them and they love me, that's all that matters. Right?

Screw the fact that for years mankind has been tinkering around with family groups and Man and Women as Husband and Wife have been the most consistently effective and stable form.

Not to mention that God has said marriage is between man and woman.

Screw other people's beliefs. I want what I want and what the 6 other people and assorted pets and a nice pair of loafers that I simply adore want. We want to enter in a legal marriage.

All that matters is love, right?

At 2:45 AM, Blogger The Great El-ahrairah said...

This is exactly my point. If the liberals want to go running off the cliff like a herd of lemmings over gay marriage, they should think a bit about the un-intended consequences of their actions. If gays are allowed to re-define marriage according to their whimes, there is no reason why all the other sex deviants in the country will not be screaming for their "civil rights". To believe that this "train wreck" will stop when Adam and Steve are happily married and forcing the State of Utah to recognize their marriage is denying obvious.


Post a Comment

<< Home